https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333610 The Court dismissed the appeal challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2000-01. The Court held that the reopening notice issued by the Assessing Officer lacked a valid reason supported by material. The RespondentAssessee, a Project Contractor, was not considered the owner of the lost equipment but an EPC contractor for KPCL. The Court found that the description of the RespondentAssessee as a "supplier" in the suit against the insurance company did not establish income escapement, leading to the decision to set aside the notice. en-us Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2017 18:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333610 The Court dismissed the appeal challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2000-01. The Court held that the reopening notice issued by the Assessing Officer lacked a valid reason supported by material. The RespondentAssessee, a Project Contractor, was not considered the owner of the lost equipment but an EPC contractor for KPCL. The Court found that the description of the RespondentAssessee as a "supplier" in the suit against the insurance company did not establish income escapement, leading to the decision to set aside the notice. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333610